Tuesday, June 26, 2012

NOTE: As I discussed in the Off-Topics, Politics, and the Redesign thread, in the redesign I’m making non-baseball content opt-in. Until the redesign is done (about two months), I’m designating one thread each month (similar to the basketball and soccer threads) as Off-Topic Politics (OT-P) and will restrict off-topic political conversations to that thread. Off-topic political comments which appear in other threads will be deleted. Since this thread has been highjacked, I’m designating this thread as the June OT-P thread.

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

This is a far better answer. I do think "most" is a debatable, though, less in numbers than in commitment. While the complaints about it have been very loud and shrill, I don't think it's something that much of the bell-curve of the right is going to choose to fight stick their flag into and fight to the metaphorical death over. YMMV, of course.

David actually got my point better than this. Opposition to the ACA polls consistently at about 47.5%. Support polls consistently at about 39.5%. These baselines have held steady since roughly April 2010. BUT, 10-14% of the opposition comes from liberals who wanted single payer.

David wants to say "it doesn't matter why they oppose it, they oppose it." That seems silly on its face, to me.

Almost no one thought the mandate was unconstitutional under the Supreme Court's existing commerce clause jurisprudence before the act was passed. The fact that so many people now believe that it's unquestionably unconstitutional is a testament to the quality of the propaganda that came out against the act at the time it was passed and immediately afterwards. And the reason there was such a concerted effort to attack the legality of the statute was because the GOP was afraid that it would become incredibly popular over time, giving the Democrats an enormous political victory.

The Necessary and Proper Clause “empowers Congress to enact laws in effectuation of its [commerce] powe[r] that are not within its authority to enact in isolation.” Raich, 545 U. S., at 39 (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment). Hence, “[a] complex regulatory program . . . can survive a Commerce Clause challenge without a showing that every single facet of the program is independently and directly related to a valid congressional goal.” Indiana, 452 U. S., at 329, n. 17. “It is enough that the challenged provisions are an integral part of the regulatory program and that the regulatory scheme when considered as a whole satisfies this test.” Ibid. (collecting cases). See also Raich, 545 U. S., at 24–25 (A challenged statutory provision fits within Congress’ commerce authority if it is an “essential par[t] of a larger regulation of economic activity,” such that, in the absence of the provision, “the regulatory scheme could be undercut.” (quoting Lopez, 514 U. S., at 561)); Raich, 545 U. S., at 37 (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment) (“Congress may regulate even noneconomic local activity if that regulation is a necessary part of a more general regulation of interstate commerce. The relevant question is simply whether the means chosen are ‘reasonably adapted’ to the attainment of a legitimate end under the commerce power.”

For Esoteric and Good Face and everyone arguing that liberals live in a bubble like this, and conservatives like in the expansive world of reality like this, I give you Ray DiPerna.

If you'd actually read what I posted, you'd see that I did not claim that all, or even most liberals live in bubbles. I also agreed that conservatives are increasingly starting to partition themselves into bubbles of their own, and wish they had the capability to do so more completely. It's not a particularly controversial position, and the backlash to it here probably represents how uncomfortably true it rings for certain people. Always amusing to see the need some people have to specify that somebody else's general statement about a relatively small subset of the population certainly doesn't include THEM. Methinks they protest too much.

IF Barack Obama is not reelected in 2012, and IF history concedes that he was voted out after one term because of his pursuit of the ACA (as history has decided the Democratic majority of the House was voted out), was the passing of the ACA a hill worth dying on?

But we heard from the Act's supporters: "Hey, even if it's unconstitutional, it's POPULAR!"

No you didn't.

Exactly right.

Basically none of the act's supporters thought it was unconstitutional. The liberal consensus is basically Yeargh's #504 - that the constitutional objection is entirely trumped up and insane on its face.

(The footnote to this consensus is that under a full Return to the Gilded Age reading of the constitution, it's possible to render Obamacare unconstitutional, but not without also rendering Social Security and Medicare and god knows how much of the existing state apparatus also unconstitutional.)

(The footnote to this consensus is that under a full Return to the Gilded Age reading of the constitution, it's possible to render Obamacare unconstitutional, but not without also rendering Social Security and Medicare and god knows how much of the existing state apparatus also unconstitutional.)

The points are particularly relevant that a) Romney obviously can't successfully campaign against Romneycare, and b) Supports liable to be ~50% this electiontime, so probably not worthwhile to either side.

I don't think one can reasonably argue that it won't become increasingly popular with time. Canada's probably he closest comparison to America, and a typical Canadian Conservatives would rather slam his dick in a sliding glass door than be seen as anything by the guardian of public healthcare. Even Canadian Libertarians mostly don't want to talk about it, because they know people who've seen both sides of the fence overwhelmingly choose the public option.

IF Barack Obama is not reelected in 2012, and IF history concedes that he was voted out after one term because of his pursuit of the ACA (as history has decided the Democratic majority of the House was voted out), was the passing of the ACA a hill worth dying on?

I'll be happy to predict my own intellectual behavior here and reject the second IF. (1) The ACA is highly unlikely to move more than 0.5% of the popular vote, which means that there will be innumerable possible causes (including topics of both campaigning and governance) of his defeat. (2) All Obama had to do was lead an economic team that didn't decide to preemptively surrender on counter-cyclical policy-making and he would have had an economy close enough to growing that the ACA would have been a minor issue.

(The footnote to this consensus is that under a full Return to the Gilded Age reading of the constitution, it's possible to render Obamacare unconstitutional, but not without also rendering Social Security and Medicare and god knows how much of the existing state apparatus also unconstitutional.)

(The footnote to this consensus is that under a full Return to the Gilded Age reading of the constitution, it's possible to render Obamacare unconstitutional, but not without also rendering Social Security and Medicare and god knows how much of the existing state apparatus also unconstitutional.)

Now you're getting me excited.

I like how we tend to agree on political analysis but radically disagree on political principles. The Kennedy-Alito-Scalia-Thomas dissent reads like full-on Nieporentism in many places.

To be clear, Matt, I don't actually agree with that, or anyway I think that it's overstated. SS and Medicare are not exercises of the Commerce Clause power, and so actually present a completely different issue than Obamacare. I don't think that it's actually true that SS and Medicare are unconstitutional under a "Gilded Age" reading of the constitution, by which you actually mean a "Reading of the constitution unbroken from the 18th century to 1937."

MCoA: I'm inclined to agree w/ your #499 as to how the right should play this - agnostic as to how this will actually go down.

Yeah, I don't think this is terribly complicated. There's just no need for Romney to get spend significant time on issues other than JobsTheEconomyJobsTheEconomy. He's not going to win on another issue - if the economy improves, the incumbent will surely win - so why pick fights on things that aren't big political winners and aren't likely the matter, anyway?

I like how we tend to agree on political analysis but radically disagree on political principles. The Kennedy-Alito-Scalia-Thomas dissent reads like full-on Nieporentism in many places

The reason Scalia is advocating against Obama from the bench this election cycle is because he desperately wants a GOP POTUS to nominate Kennedy's replacement and preserve or further the New Gilded Age minority* of the court. (*at this point we have to assume there is no majority, only two minorities competing for John Roberts' approval.)

Having briefly skimmed the opinions -- something I don't have time to do but can't resist -- I am a little heartened by the fact that five justices rejected the commerce clause argument. It is a terrible day for freedom, but at least the court did not rule that Congress can simply order you to engage in commerce. (Or, more to the point, it directly confronted and rejected that.) Instead, it simply held that this was really a tax. As such, it does not actually expand the power of Congress at all, as liberals had wanted to do. It's not much comfort, but it's some.

David is entirely correct. Obamacare polls somewhere between 40 and 50% support. Even if you give the most generous reading of opposition from the left, the best you can spin it to is 55ish percent support. That's not popular in any meaningful sense. It certainly isn't popular enough that one could reasonably expect a "backlash" to a Supreme Court decision invalidating the law.

There is a prospective case to be made that Obamacare will become popular, but it isn't popular right now.

The relevant polling question isn't so much the popularity of the law as it's the popularity of the Court overturning it. The polls I've seen have shown that while there were more people who wanted the law to be entirely overturned than who wanted to see it entirely upheld, the majority of people wanted the non-mandate provisions to be upheld.

I don't really like that poll very much. If you give people a "middle ground" option on an issue they don't understand terribly well or that they aren't terribly invested in, they're likely to select it. And even at face value, 51% of the population isn't anything like the numbers you'd need for a backlash.

(And, as I think Danny agrees, there's vanishingly little evidence for the Backlash Theory of the political effect of Supreme Court decisions.)

These baselines have held steady since roughly April 2010. BUT, 10-14% of the opposition comes from liberals who wanted single payer.

But I think the question is, within that 50-55% of those who either support or opposed because they wanted single payer, would there have been enough passion around the issue to lead to a "backlash"? And I'd guess that those in the 10-15% would be more likely to get fired up about the SC decision overturning ACA than a lot of the 40% who support it. But I think anyone who pays enough attention to politics to be enraged by the SC overturning ACA was already going to vote for Obama. Maybe it would bump up turnout and/or donations a bit.

===was the passing of the ACA a hill worth dying on?

No. But I think it's pretty unlikely that if Obama loses, it'll be due to ACA. I think Romney's "Obama fiddled with ACA while the economy burned" narrative loses a lot of its punch now that ACA has been upheld, especially in light of the fact that he hasn't provided any sort of alternative.

==a typical Canadian Conservatives would rather slam his dick in a sliding glass door than be seen as anything by the guardian of public healthcare.

For those of us unfamiliar with your system, does Canadian health insurance cover this sort of injury?

I don't think that it's actually true that SS and Medicare are unconstitutional under a "Gilded Age" reading of the constitution, by which you actually mean a "Reading of the constitution unbroken from the 18th century to 1937."

If you'd actually read what I posted, you'd see that I did not claim that all, or even most liberals live in bubbles.

Well, that's awesome, GF, because that's not close to what you were writing in response to, what you quoted of MCoA's:

For Esoteric and Good Face and everyone arguing that liberals live in a bubble like this....

All? Most? Why would you even write that in your response to what MCoA wrote? He was even LESS specific than you:

Plenty [emphasis mine] of today's liberals live their entire lives in narrow cocoons where their worldview is constantly reinforced. Their schools, their newspapers, their TV shows, their websites, their friends, all passing along the same received wisdom and approved beliefs, such that they come to mistake agreement for intelligence. To the extent they are aware of dissenting views, those views almost invariably take the form of strawmen or caricatures.

The nutters remain too far gone to realize it, but the actual "conservative" position is that an act of Congress of this magnitude shouldn't be overturned by the Court by a 5-4 majority unless its unconstitutionality is all but unavoidable.

It wasn't here.

Health care, particularly childrens' health care, remains an sphere of life too profound for money and the amoral values of the marketplace to impact outcomes as much as they do.

No. But I think it's pretty unlikely that if Obama loses, it'll be due to ACA.

The Teapers have been losing steam, perhaps this may rile them back up? The hard right has been in a state of fury since 11/08, it's hard to keep that sense of outrage up - especially when so much of it is divorced from reality- Obama is a socialist, the United State's experiment in democracy is dead, freedom is dead, the constitution is dead Obama has been an unmitigated disaster

You want an unmitigated disaster? Try Carter

Try Dubya:
We get attacked by one country- so he invades another
His predecessor balanced the budget- he completely unhinged it
The unemployment rate virtually doubled during his time in office
Greatly expanded surveillance of US citizens
His admin started the ATF "gun walking" operations ("Wide Receiver," later we had "Fast and Furious" under Obama Admin)
and don't get me started on other stuff...

Obama took over a bad situation and... meh, I'd say he hasn't made it (the economy) any worse
he's also continued (and sometimes expanded) bad Dubya policies (you give an executive power they are going to use it, they are not willingly going to give it up)
he's started disengaging from Dubya's wars- but has been taking his own sweet time in doing so.

Who is Obama? My stock answer has always been that he's a politician, aside from that, 3+ years in, I'm still not sure- was DADT repealed because that's what he believes in or was it simply because an element of his base wanted it? The recent immigration executive order? Ditto.

I am certain that he's not what the far lefties hoped for, or what the righties feared... but aside from that? What doe she really think or believe? I dunno.

I don't believe in states' rights (people have rights, not state or federal governments), but it's perfectly consistent for a conservative, presumably believing in states' rights, to be in favor of a program at the state level and against that exact same program at the federal level.

And for all the people who lose their insurance because (a) the employer mandates are more expensive than the employer penalties, or (b) it's banned by the regulations against real health insurance -- that is, high deductible insurance which covers catastrophic care -- it will be unpopular.

A myth which does not now and I predict will continue to have little to no basis in fact... as with the individual mandate, the subsidy/penalty line is rather generous. The line is 250 employees - and HHS/DOL have been handing out exemptions like candy where they've been requested.

I am certain that he's not what the far lefties hoped for, or what the righties feared... but aside from that? What doe she really think or believe? I dunno.

Seems to me that what you described is a bog standard establishment Democrat. He opposed the wars but didn't want to step on the toes of military brass in ending them. He supported the expansion of the welfare state but sought solutions that do not step on the toes of industry too much, he supported gay rights but wasn't willing to push the issue too hard, he believes in counter-cyclical economic policy but balks at big round numbers and political intervention with the Fed. You said he wasn't what leftists hoped for or what rightists feared, which seems like further evidence that he's mostly a boring, standard establishment Democrat with mostly boring, standard establishment Democratic political investments.

Another way of putting it. Imagine that the president since 2009 had been Bill Clinton, Al Gore, or Hillary Clinton. Do you think much of substance would be different? I doubt it. I have vague hopes for Earth-2 that they might have been better on the economy, but I think it's a touch more likely they'd have caved on health care. In general, Obama governed just like the other elites of his party would have.

EDIT: Well, obviously with Gore maybe he chases a cap-and-trade policy. But that really just shows a way in which Gore isn't quite as much of a standard establishment Dem anymore.

No Conservatives believe in States Rights when "liberals" control the Federal Government, or when a "liberal" federal judge tells a state that its "conservative" law or policy is no good.

Conservatives emphatically do not believe in states rights when a "liberal" controlled state wants to do something at odds with a what a conservative federal administration wants.

Yes it would be "perfectly consistent" for a conservative states righter to be in favor of Romneycare and against Obamacare - but you rarely find such consistency-

just as the # of people complaining about the level of Government spending dramatically increases when a Dem is in the office- and dramatically declines when a Repub is on office- completely independent of actual spending levels...

IF Barack Obama is not reelected in 2012, and IF history concedes that he was voted out after one term because of his pursuit of the ACA (as history has decided the Democratic majority of the House was voted out), was the passing of the ACA a hill worth dying on?

Yes.

Some form of single-payer, at least providing a baseline coverage level, is coming -- whether people like it or not. At various points - certain services have been deemed necessary and proper to ensure available to all citizens... I can understand why, 200+ years ago -- getting mail was considered necessary and proper for all citizens while health care was not. Science -- and the world -- have advanced. This is not a new thing. Again - I keep coming back to EMTALA... We've already decided that access to a basic level of health care is something that should be guaranteed. You can spin it however you want - but society generally (and not just the US) have decided that if medical science has moderately easy way to see that you don't die from something that would have killed you a century ago, it will be provided.

All we're doing now is figuring out how to fund that.... ACA, if nothing else, says we're going to pay for it via the fashion outlined.

It may well turn out NOT to be the ultimate fashion, but make no mistake -- I'll even frame it liberal bashing terms -- people like that an entity gives them things, even if they and others are to be taxed for it.

Another way of putting it. Imagine that the president since 2009 had been Bill Clinton, Al Gore, or Hillary Clinton. Do you think much of substance would be different? I doubt it.

I think Hillary may have done a better job anticipating the Repub's complete intransigence on everything (except defense spending)- and I'm not sure that would have made a difference... aside from that?

Gitmo? That was an unsolvable mess left by Dubya, closing Gitmo and bringing the prisoner's here? Complete and utter non-starter. Mass release? ditto, I really think the only solution was to patiently weed through the inmates releasing some and trying others as appropriate...

I think Obama was a bit too lenient on the heads of the financial industry, I think he handled GM as well as that could have been handled...

Immigration reform? I think that is unsolvable/unreformable in the current political climate- the know nothings can't get what they want, but they are powerful enough to prevent anyone else from doing anything- this was one case where even Nixon (Dubya) couldn't go to China.

To provide health insurance to those who could not previously afford it.

Thank you, Sam. Sometimes the most obvious point needs to be re-stated. Let the Republicans run against that if they wish, because that's exactly how Obama is going to properly frame the issue.

I'll agree that providing wider health insurance to people was one of the goals of liberals. (I have all sorts of disagreements when we break that down, centering around the fact that people already had a baseline of coverage, and centering around who "could not afford" it and how we _should_ go about fixing whatever the problems were, etc., but I'll agree that in fairness Sam accurately stated one of the goals of liberals.)

However: Others of the goals of liberals with the ACA included power grabbing, redistribution of wealth, issues of "fairness" (fairness in the minds of liberals), etc. That point should be conceded as well.

I think Obama was a bit too lenient on the heads of the financial industry

I do too, but that seems like more standard Democratism. The financial industry has forged both deep and broad ties with the Democratic Party, and a real accounting for wrongdoers among financial elites was highly unlikely under an establishment Democratic adminstration. (And even less likely under Republicans, of course.)

This actually isn't that far from reality. I remember two years ago when Tea Party candidates town halls were in vogue around here that someone in attendance actually got up and yelled "just keep the damn government's hands off my Medicare." He was completely serious.

Are you freaking serious? I think you need to pay a LOT closer attention to what's actually going on in the world these days.

You mean like every other industrialized nation on the planet moving towards this in the last generation? Ever since Bismark's plan in the late 19th century -- the basic underpinning has been adopted by EVERY friggin' country on the planet... Can you name one that's rolled it back? Of course not - because none have. Some have nationalized the provider core itself. Some have nationalized the insurance schema. Some have simply regulated private insurers to the point of making them into utilities.

I think you need to a pay lot closer to what's going on in the world these days, but reality is a fair bit different from what you seem to think it is.... unless I missed Cameron moving to eliminate the NHS, Canada proposing to dump single payer, Switzerland eliminating the top and bottom zero-profit coverage requirement, Japan eliminating government negotiated payment rates, etc.

Uhhh, most of the west is going slowly (and in some cases not so slowly) bankrupt, and the Bismarckian welfare state of which you speak is already at the beginning of the end. Again, you need to pay a lot closer attention to what's going in the world.

I think Obama was a bit too lenient on the heads of the financial industry

Now this is one of those frightening Chavezista statements. What on earth does it mean? Either these people committed crimes, in which case they should have been indicted, arrested, and prosecuted, or they didn't, in which case Obama has absolutely nothing to say to them.

Conservatives emphatically do not believe in states rights when a "liberal" controlled state wants to do something at odds with a what a conservative federal administration wants.

While I am not a fan of a lot of states rights issues but I do not think this statement is correct. I have never seen conservatives try and fight any of California's stricter environmental laws federally and there was never a constitutional fight when Massachusetts passed their health care bill.

What on earth does it mean? Either these people committed crimes, in which case they should have been indicted, arrested, and prosecuted, or they didn't, in which case Obama has absolutely nothing to say to them.

They should have been investigated. Then indicted, arrested, and prosecuted. Obama could easily have directed the DoJ to undertake a massive investigation, but he didn't.

It's also true that bailout funds could have come with far tougher restrictions and requirements for firms that accept them, which could have included demands for various leaders to step down. (Those aren't the restrictions I'd have been advocating for, precisely, but it seems like a perfectly reasonable thing for the government to do - if they're going to risk hundreds of billions bailing out these companies, at least don't have that money bet on the same guys that ran the industry into the ground.)

i have a friend who's a pretty frothy rightwinger ... she says this is a win for romney, but i suspect she was listening to some of the jibber jabber on fox. how does one come to that conclusion? i'm not being snarky, i'm curious since i avoid fox as a primary news source.

Now this is one of those frightening Chavezista statements. What on earth does it mean? Either these people committed crimes, in which case they should have been indicted, arrested, and prosecuted, or they didn't, in which case Obama has absolutely nothing to say to them.

Not that I would necessarily advocate this (there were reasons for not doing so), but there could have been much more stringent requirements imposed on the executives of companies that received extraordinary bailouts under Obama.

EDIT: One thing worth remembering is that most of the financial sector bailouts came under Bush, rather than Obama. But there were extraordinary bailouts for some companies that took place (and continue to take place) under Obama.

How do my posts on the subject lead one to the conclusion that any particular individual MUST live in such a bubble?

Because you made a joke about how silly people sound when they claim to be exceptions. I'd like to know if you think that you're a silly person.

Alas, it appears you missed the point, so let me elaborate.

Scenario 1. X says, "Lots of liberals live in bubbles." Y appears and protests that no, he does not live in a bubble. This amuses me, because Y is acting like an insecure prat. ('sup Lassus!)

Scenario 2. X says, "Hey Y, YOU live in a bubble." Y appears and either agrees or disagrees. This is not particularly amusing to me.

You see, the humor stems from when people rush to defend themselves against charges that have not actually been levelled against them, typically because they realize the truth of those charges as they apply to them. Please don't hesitate to let me know if you need this broken down further.

Uhhh, most of the west is going slowly (and in some cases not so slowly) bankrupt, and the Bismarckian welfare state of which you speak is already at the beginning of the end. Again, you need to pay a lot closer attention to what's going in the world.

Ummm -- ALL of the west has some form of national health care... I'm always tickled by "analysis" like this -- though, I find it somewhat amusing that both the TP set and the OWS sort of arrive at the same point from different directions.

The TP set chicken littles about nations being able to pay back UBS, Morgan Stanley, and yes - individual bondholders.

The OWS set chicken littles about nations having to pay back UBS, Morgan Stanley, and yes - individual bondholders.

The simple reality still remains that if someone borrows a thousand dollars and can't pay it back, that's a problem for him. If someone borrows billions and can't pay it back, that's a problem for the lender.

That's some real good trollery, GF. I didn't even quite see that you were trolling at first - I figured you took it as obvious that if you make a broad statement about a group with which people identify, they'd take that statement as being about themselves. We are all defined partly by our allegiances.

But in fact you were just trolling, waiting for people to make the obvious conclusion, and then playing your little mockery game. I should have learned a long time ago not to engage with you on these meta games you like to play.

she says this is a win for romney, but i suspect she was listening to some of the jibber jabber on fox. how does one come to that conclusion? i'm not being snarky, i'm curious since i avoid fox as a primary news source.

Without endorsing this "logic", I think the argument would go that if the Supreme Court had overturned Obamacare, then some staunch anti-Obamacare folks might have been less enthused about the upcoming election and perhaps stayed home, since the most important reason for throwing Obama out of office - to overturn Obamacare - would no longer exist. Now, the only way to get Obamacare tossed is to elect Romney and a Republican Congress, so they can do so legislatively, which should whip up the Republican base and ensure strong Republican turnout in November. It makes some sense, I think.

You see, the humor stems from when people rush to defend themselves against charges that have not actually been levelled against them, typically because they realize the truth of those charges as they apply to them.

... he says, defending himself because he realizes the truth of those charges as they apply to him.

Without endorsing this "logic", I think the argument would go that if the Supreme Court had overturned Obamacare, then some staunch anti-Obamacare folks might have been less enthused about the upcoming election and perhaps stayed home, since the most important reason for throwing Obama out of office - to overturn Obamacare - would no longer exist.

I don't think this is true at all. If ObamaCare had gotten shot down, the anti-Obama folks would have started lining up to vote today, because they'd smell blood in the water. For many people (in my life, my in-laws) the worst part about ObamaCare is the Obama part of it. Had the exact same bill been NewtCare, they'd have been all over it.

You see, the humor stems from when people rush to defend themselves against charges that have not actually been levelled against them, typically because they realize the truth of those charges as they apply to them. Please don't hesitate to let me know if you need this broken down further.

The necessity to explain a joke is the failure of the teller, not the audience.

The simple reality still remains that if someone borrows a thousand dollars and can't pay it back, that's a problem for him. If someone borrows billions and can't pay it back, that's a problem for the lender.

Huh, so this is the left's ultimate "solution" to the problem; they're going to say "f*ck you, we're not paying you back". Boy, I can't wait to see what the repercussions of that are going to be.

I don't think this is true at all. If ObamaCare had gotten shot down, the anti-Obama folks would have started lining up to vote today, because they'd smell blood in the water. For many people (in my life, my in-laws) the worst part about ObamaCare is the Obama part of it. Had the exact same bill been NewtCare, they'd have been all over it.

Sadly that is true and it goes both ways, the history of cap and trade is a good example of that.

They should have been investigated. Then indicted, arrested, and prosecuted. Obama could easily have directed the DoJ to undertake a massive investigation, but he didn't.

First, we have no idea what investigations were done; second, the government isn't supposed to 'investigate' people for political reasons; unless there's actual evidence of a crime, what was Obama supposed to do? The DoJ has prosecuted people for insider trading, and a few bankers for mortgage fraud (which mostly fell apart for lack of evidence). But what crimes did the "heads of the financial industry" commit?

The new spin on the Right (Hotair collective wisdom) is that because it was saved as a TAX, now they can paint Obama as a tax and spendocrat or something like that. Unfortunatley, they picked the absolute worst Republican candidate in the US to make this argument.

Excuse me as a dive back in to the fever swamp to get poop thrown at me.

she says this is a win for romney, but i suspect she was listening to some of the jibber jabber on fox. how does one come to that conclusion? i'm not being snarky, i'm curious since i avoid fox as a primary news source.

The base is getting all worked up in a lather...

The right are dusting off their old liberal court bashing campaign material (nevermind that some will be doing a 180, decrying the left's criticism of the court system as recently as... yesterday)

And I'm sure you are aware of confirmation bias? Some people (all people if we're not careful) will spin any piece of news- good, bad or neutral, in away that favors their side-

Obamcare overruled? That's good for Romney because it shows what a waste Obama's term has been, it show show Obama overreached etc etc.
Obamacare upheld? That's good for Romney because the base is really engaged now, they know what the stakes are, they can't rely on the courts etc etc.

The Repub problem now is that some provisions of Obamacare are starting to kick in- and future efforts at repeal are going to run into the fact that a repeal would be "taking away" something from some people- and that tends to engender a very negative reaction- Obamacare approval can stay at 40% but if those 40% start getting very passionate- while those opposed start getting less passionate- then Obamcare is going to get entrenched.

i have a friend who's a pretty frothy rightwinger ... she says this is a win for romney, but i suspect she was listening to some of the jibber jabber on fox. how does one come to that conclusion?

Regardless of whether this reinvigorates the anger-- "If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine"-- the unfortunate thing for the GOP is that there is literally no person alive on planet Earth who is less suited to speak for the "repeal Obamacare!" cause than Mitt Romney. Obama even stole his suffix.

So now we're giving health care to plants, are we?!
FWIW, I know one person who has uttered these same sentiments (the 'hands off my' ones, that is) - they are old, angry, politically active, and hopelessly ignorant about pretty much everything. I don't mean politically everything, I mean everything everything - she's pretty messed up.

...they picked the absolute worst candidate in the US to make this argument.

Irrespective of my own views and partisan desires on this issue, that is pretty amusing.

First, we have no idea what investigations were done; second, the government isn't supposed to 'investigate' people for political reasons; unless there's actual evidence of a crime, what was Obama supposed to do?

The executive branch directs the DoJ all the time. See the investigations of porn and gambling under Obama and Bush. This is perfectly normal executive behavior. It's not a politically motivated investigation, it's an investigation motivated by the belief that crimes were committed.

I guess it's possible that there were extensive investigations that turned up nothing and went unpublicized. That seems incredibly unlikely - the financial industry isn't run by people who wouldn't know how to get that story out - but I will say that it's not entirely inconceivable, and if it happened, good on Obama and Holder. but come on, it didn't happen.

Ooh, is the Medicare part of this ruling really that broad? I know I need to read this all, but the media quips I've read/heard suggest that South Dakota v Dole.(Feds can hold highway $$ hostage to compel states to raise drinking age to 21) may be out of favor? If so, I expect Wisconsin leg. to introduce a 18/19 drinking age bill in the not so distant future.